Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: "Tatsuo Ishii" <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch
Date: 2008-09-10 18:27:57
Message-ID: 603c8f070809101127w23d0b3b0m4a290f084380fb7e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I meant that -- hypothetically if we did accept the feature as-is -- the
> number of evaluations would be documented to be undefined, not N. That
> would avoid the backwards-compatibility problem.
>
> This one point is probably not worth discussing now, because argument
> #1 and #2 stand on their own.

Agreed. Plus, both Tom and Pavel seem to think this is a relatively
solvable problem.

...Robert

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-09-10 18:41:16 Re: Planner question
Previous Message Tom Raney 2008-09-10 18:21:54 Re: Planner question